Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 2008–2026 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Wisconsin courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Mayogreen2 sentences2008See Mayo, 301 Wis.2d 642, ¶ 29 , 734 N.W.2d 115 . ¶ 23 If the defendant shows that the unobjected to error is fundamental, obvious, and substantial, the burden then shifts to the State to show the error was harmless. [4] Id. (citing King, 205 Wis.2d at 93 , 555 N.W.2d 189 ). 2008See Mayo, 301 Wis.2d 642, ¶ 29 , 734 N.W.2d 115 . ¶ 23 If the defendant shows that the unobjected to error is fundamental, obvious, and substantial, the burden then shifts to the State to show the error was harmless. [4] Id. (citing King, 205 Wis.2d at 93 , 555 N.W.2d 189 ). | 3 | 5 |
State v. Sullivangreen2 sentences2023In that undertaking, we also invoke the traditional, three-step analytical framework established in State v. Sullivan, 216 Wis. 2d 768, 771-72, 783 , 576 N.W.2d 30 (1998). 2023In that undertaking, we also invoke the traditional, three-step analytical framework established in State v. Sullivan, 216 Wis. 2d 768, 771-72, 783 , 576 N.W.2d 30 (1998). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kinggreen2 sentences2008See Mayo, 301 Wis.2d 642, ¶ 29 , 734 N.W.2d 115 . ¶ 23 If the defendant shows that the unobjected to error is fundamental, obvious, and substantial, the burden then shifts to the State to show the error was harmless. [4] Id. (citing King, 205 Wis.2d at 93 , 555 N.W.2d 189 ). 2008See Mayo, 301 Wis.2d 642, ¶ 29 , 734 N.W.2d 115 . ¶ 23 If the defendant shows that the unobjected to error is fundamental, obvious, and substantial, the burden then shifts to the State to show the error was harmless. [4] Id. (citing King, 205 Wis.2d at 93 , 555 N.W.2d 189 ). | 1 | 1 |
Miranda v. Arizonagreen1 sentence2008See Miranda, 384 U.S. at 475 (a heavy burden is placed on the State to show a waiver of the right to counsel in a custodial interrogation). ¶ 39. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Jorgensen
green
2 sentences2026Wisconsin courts “should use the plain error doctrine sparingly.” State v. Jorgensen, 2008 WI 60, ¶21 , 310 Wis. 2d 138 , 754 N.W.2d 77 . ¶7 “If the defendant shows that the unobjected to error is fundamental, obvious, and substantial, the burden then shifts to the State to show the error was harmless.” Id., ¶23. 2026Wisconsin courts “should use the plain error doctrine sparingly.” State v. Jorgensen, 2008 WI 60, ¶21 , 310 Wis. 2d 138 , 754 N.W.2d 77 . ¶7 “If the defendant shows that the unobjected to error is fundamental, obvious, and substantial, the burden then shifts to the State to show the error was harmless.” Id., ¶23. | 4 | 2009–2026 |
State v. Daniel A. Griffin
neutral
1 sentence2023To support relief, the error must also be obvious and substantial; it is only if the defendant “shows that the unobjected to error is fundamental, obvious, and substantial [that] the burden then shifts to the State to show the error was harmless.” Id. ¶31 Beyond this, we review the “circuit court’s admission of other-acts evidence for an erroneous exercise of discretion.” State v. Griffin, 2019 WI App 49, ¶19 , 388 Wis. 2d. 581, 933 N.W.2d 681 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Harris
green
2 sentences2020An error is harmless when “it is ‘clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error.’” State v. Harris, 2008 WI 15, ¶43 , 307 Wis. 2d 555 , 745 N.W.2d 397 (quoted source omitted). ¶25 Here, the circuit court determined that the error was fundamental, obvious, and substantial, but that the State met its burden to prove harmlessness: [T]he State has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would still have found Mao guilty. 2020An error is harmless when “it is ‘clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error.’” State v. Harris, 2008 WI 15, ¶43 , 307 Wis. 2d 555 , 745 N.W.2d 397 (quoted source omitted). ¶25 Here, the circuit court determined that the error was fundamental, obvious, and substantial, but that the State met its burden to prove harmlessness: [T]he State has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would still have found Mao guilty. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
United States v. Olano
green
2 sentences2009Cf. Johnson, 520 U.S. at 461 ; Olano, 507 U.S. at 725 ; State v. Mayo, 2007 WI 78 , 301 Wis. 2d 642 , 734 N.W.2d 115 . 2009Cf. Johnson, 520 U.S. at 461 , 117 S.Ct. 1544 ; Olano, 507 U.S. at 725 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 ; State v. Mayo, 2007 WI 78 , 301 Wis.2d 642 , 734 N.W.2d 115 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Johnson v. United States
green
2 sentences2009Cf. Johnson, 520 U.S. at 461 ; Olano, 507 U.S. at 725 ; State v. Mayo, 2007 WI 78 , 301 Wis. 2d 642 , 734 N.W.2d 115 . 2009Cf. Johnson, 520 U.S. at 461 , 117 S.Ct. 1544 ; Olano, 507 U.S. at 725 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 ; State v. Mayo, 2007 WI 78 , 301 Wis.2d 642 , 734 N.W.2d 115 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.